netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY
@ 2018-09-06 13:54 Vincent Whitchurch
  2018-09-06 19:44 ` Willem de Bruijn
  2018-09-08  6:11 ` David Miller
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Whitchurch @ 2018-09-06 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: davem; +Cc: netdev, willemb, Vincent Whitchurch

According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.

Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
purpose.  Fix it.

Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
---
 net/core/skbuff.c | 3 ---
 net/ipv4/tcp.c    | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/core/skbuff.c b/net/core/skbuff.c
index c996c09d095f..b2c807f67aba 100644
--- a/net/core/skbuff.c
+++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
@@ -939,9 +939,6 @@ struct ubuf_info *sock_zerocopy_alloc(struct sock *sk, size_t size)
 
 	WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_task());
 
-	if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY))
-		return NULL;
-
 	skb = sock_omalloc(sk, 0, GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!skb)
 		return NULL;
diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp.c b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
index b8af2fec5ad5..10c6246396cc 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
@@ -1185,7 +1185,7 @@ int tcp_sendmsg_locked(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t size)
 
 	flags = msg->msg_flags;
 
-	if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && size) {
+	if (flags & MSG_ZEROCOPY && size && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZEROCOPY)) {
 		if (sk->sk_state != TCP_ESTABLISHED) {
 			err = -EINVAL;
 			goto out_err;
-- 
2.11.0

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY
  2018-09-06 13:54 [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY Vincent Whitchurch
@ 2018-09-06 19:44 ` Willem de Bruijn
  2018-09-08  6:11 ` David Miller
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Willem de Bruijn @ 2018-09-06 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: vincent.whitchurch
  Cc: David Miller, Network Development, Willem de Bruijn, rabinv

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:58 AM Vincent Whitchurch
<vincent.whitchurch@axis.com> wrote:
>
> According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
> flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
> any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
> MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.
>
> Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
> which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
> would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
> it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
> purpose.  Fix it.
>
> Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>

Acked-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>

Good catch, thanks for fixing this.

Please remember to mark patches with PATCH net

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY
  2018-09-06 13:54 [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY Vincent Whitchurch
  2018-09-06 19:44 ` Willem de Bruijn
@ 2018-09-08  6:11 ` David Miller
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2018-09-08  6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: vincent.whitchurch; +Cc: netdev, willemb, rabinv

From: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>
Date: Thu,  6 Sep 2018 15:54:59 +0200

> According to the documentation in msg_zerocopy.rst, the SO_ZEROCOPY
> flag was introduced because send(2) ignores unknown message flags and
> any legacy application which was accidentally passing the equivalent of
> MSG_ZEROCOPY earlier should not see any new behaviour.
> 
> Before commit f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY"), a send(2) call
> which passed the equivalent of MSG_ZEROCOPY without setting SO_ZEROCOPY
> would succeed.  However, after that commit, it fails with -ENOBUFS.  So
> it appears that the SO_ZEROCOPY flag fails to fulfill its intended
> purpose.  Fix it.
> 
> Fixes: f214f915e7db ("tcp: enable MSG_ZEROCOPY")
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>

Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-09-08 10:56 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-09-06 13:54 [PATCH] tcp: really ignore MSG_ZEROCOPY if no SO_ZEROCOPY Vincent Whitchurch
2018-09-06 19:44 ` Willem de Bruijn
2018-09-08  6:11 ` David Miller

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).